> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.atomicagi.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # SEO audit > Run end-to-end technical SEO triage from audit summary to URL-level fixes in one workflow SEO audit overview with site health cards and audit history table Use this page as your full technical SEO workflow. It covers the summary view, run-level diagnosis, crawl-log validation, and URL-level issue execution.

Important: Fix highest-severity template-level issues first. They usually unlock the fastest site-wide improvement.

## Questions this page should answer 1. Is technical health improving from audit to audit? 2. Which issue groups are causing the biggest risk right now? 3. Which exact URLs should be fixed first this sprint? ## Before you analyze * Keep the same date range used in your weekly reporting cadence. * Start with the summary cards, then open the newest completed run. * Compare at least two runs before assigning root cause. ## What this page gives you * Top-level technical health snapshot (`Site health`, `Errors`, `Warnings`, `Notices`). * Run-level diagnosis with issue grouping and crawl behavior. * URL-level issue detail to create precise execution tasks. * A complete triage path in one document. ## How to read the top cards * `Site health`: overall technical quality score for the crawl. * `Errors`: highest-priority issues that can block crawling/indexing quality. * `Warnings`: medium-priority issues that can create risk if ignored. * `Notices`: lower-priority issues to batch and resolve over time. Use this interpretation: * Rising `Errors` means immediate action. * Flat but high `Warnings` means hidden debt that can become future blockers. * Stable `Site health` with concentrated issues still requires focused fixes.

Key signal: If errors rise and pages crawled stay stable, the issue is usually real quality degradation, not sampling noise.

## How these metrics are calculated (simple) ### Site health ```text theme={null} Site health = 100 - Weighted impact of all detected issues in the selected audit run ``` Higher score means fewer severe issues across crawled pages. ### Errors / Warnings / Notices Severity counts are direct totals of findings grouped by severity (`Error`, `Warning`, `Notice`). ## How to use audit history Use `Audit history` to choose the run to investigate first: * Open the newest completed run first. * Compare with the previous run for issue-trend confirmation. * Watch `Pages crawled` and `Duration` to detect crawl volatility. If a run looks abnormal, continue with run-level diagnosis below. ## Run detail: All issues view This is where you prioritize issue categories by impact before touching individual URLs. SEO audit run detail All issues view with category-level issue analysis What to do: * Identify issue groups affecting the most pages. * Prioritize error classes on key templates first. * Choose one high-impact issue class and close it end-to-end. What this tells you: * Whether risk is concentrated in one technical area. * Whether the issue is likely template-wide or page-specific. ## Run detail: Crawl log view Use crawl log when you need evidence about how URLs were crawled and where failures happened. SEO audit run Crawl log view with per-URL crawl results and statuses What to check: * Repeated HTTP errors, timeouts, or blocked responses. * Failure clusters by folder/template. * Crawl behavior changes after deployments. When to use: * Issue counts changed sharply. * Developers need URL-level crawl proof. ## Issue detail: affected URLs view After selecting an issue class, use issue detail to assign exact fixes. SEO issue detail view with affected URLs for one technical issue How to work this table: 1. Group URLs by template/folder. 2. Prioritize commercial and high-visibility pages. 3. Assign owner and deadline per URL group. 4. Validate fixes in the next audit run. Use this interpretation: * Many URLs in one path usually means a shared template defect. * Mixed status behavior can indicate rendering/routing inconsistency. ## Quick weekly checklist 1. Check summary cards for direction change. 2. Open latest run and triage top issue groups. 3. Use crawl log to confirm root cause. 4. Move to issue-detail URL lists and assign work. 5. Validate reduction in the next completed run. ## What to fix first | Pattern in SEO audit flow | What it usually means | Recommended action | | ---------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- | | Errors up sharply in summary | New release or template issue introduced risk | Open latest run and prioritize critical issue class | | One issue group affects many URLs | Template-level defect | Patch shared template/component first | | Crawl log shows repeated failures | Crawl access/infrastructure instability | Fix technical crawl blockers before content tweaks | | Same issue persists across runs | QA/deployment process gap | Add pre-release technical checks and owner accountability | | High-value URLs affected in issue detail | Direct business impact | Fix those URLs first in current sprint | ## Team routine 1. Weekly: run full triage from summary to issue-detail assignments. 2. Bi-weekly: verify fix closure and rerun checks. 3. Monthly: report resolved issue classes and repeated root causes. ## Keep in mind * One clean run does not prove long-term stability. * Crawl-size shifts can change totals without real quality movement. * Never mark fixes complete before the next successful audit confirmation. ## Where to go next * [Technical overview](/data/technical/overview) * [LLM audit](/data/technical/llm-audit) * [Interlinking](/data/technical/interlinking) * [Cannibalization](/data/technical/cannibalization) * [URL indexing](/data/technical/url-indexing)